Drexel responded without bothering to find out what the tweet was about. It therefore declared a professor's statement "reprehensible" without understanding what the statement meant.

Drexel does think that the statement is reprehensible. Which I guess means that it implicitly opposes interracial marriage, multiculturalism, and birth control.

Drexel looked into what the statement actually meant but was still so cowed by the possibility of criticism that it condemned Professor Ciccariello-Maher's statement and insisted that he come in for further discussion.

My suspicion is that we are looking at number 1. But that is extremely disturbing in its own right. It suggests that in the present climate the Drexel University administration is more concerned with the possibility of external criticism than they are committed to defending the freedom of expression of their faculty or even to take the time to understand the situation before they act. In effect, Drexel is telling its community that they need to curb their own freedom of speech rather than say something that might be misunderstood.

It is this new context that makes the Ciccariello-Maher case both like and unlike cases we have seen in recent years. His is not the first tweet that has produced criticism of faculty and in some cases punitive responses from administrations. But his is the first case since the election and in the context of an increasingly empowered white nationalist movement. There may be good reasons why individuals will choose not to provoke situations that will not help them in the long run. But if colleges and universities fail to protect the academic freedom of their faculty they will purchase a brief moment of peace at the cost of the long-term destruction of their institution's autonomy and integrity.